Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

ABHISHEK SHARMA versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

Section 3(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 insofar as it excludes employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis from consideration for regularisation despite fulfilment of the conditions under Section 5 is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14; once the statutory conditions under Section 5(i)–(v) are satisfied the nomenclature of initial appointment is irrelevant and the State must consider such employees for regularisation under Section 5.

Source excerpt

  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • Reasonable classification
  • Regularisation of employees
  • Academic arrangement
  • Contractual appointments
Read case analysis
Service law

ABHAY KUMAR PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

The 2022 Amendment Rules introducing Rule 8(5) could not be applied retrospectively to the recruitment processes initiated by the 2019 Advertisements after the written examination had been held and provisional merit lists published; the selection process must be finalized in accordance with the 2019 Rules as they existed on the date of the advertisements and not by changing eligibility criteria mid-process.

Source excerpt

  • Retrospective effect
  • Recruitment rules amendment
  • Selection criteria
  • Provisional merit list
  • Weightage for contractual experience
  • Article 309
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

ARSHNOOR KAUR & ANR. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Once the Central Government has by notification under Section 12 Army Act, 1950 permitted women to join a particular corps/branch (here JAG), the executive cannot, by policy or administrative instruction, impose additional restrictions on the extent of induction or create a reserved category for men; the impugned notification allocating unequal vacancies (six for men, three for women) and separate treatment that results in meritorious women being denied selection violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Section 12 and amounts to indirect discrimination; a combined merit list should be published an…

Source excerpt

  • Article 14
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 33
  • Army act, 1950 s.12
  • Gender neutrality
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

AMRIT YADAV versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

The advertisement dated 29.07.2010 was invalid for failing to specify total posts and reservation details and for lacking procedural clarity, rendering the recruitment process and resultant appointments nullities; accordingly the High Court was justified in directing preparation of a fresh panel without hearing incumbents because the appointments were void ab initio; the advertisement and consequential proceedings are quashed and the State must re-advertise and re-conduct recruitment in accordance with law with suitable age relaxation.

Source excerpt

  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • Validity of advertisement
  • Appointment process
  • Principle of natural justice
  • Reservation in public employment
Read case analysis
Service law

TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS. versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

Eligibility criteria and benchmarks for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed mid-process unless permitted by extant Rules or the advertisement and any permitted change must satisfy Article 14; recruiting authorities may, where rules allow or are silent, devise transparent, non-arbitrary procedures and set benchmarks before the relevant stage, but extant statutory rules must be followed; placement in a select list does not give an indefeasible right to appointment though arbitrary denial of appointment is impermissible.

Source excerpt

  • Recruitment
  • Appointment
  • Eligibility criteria
  • Selection procedure
  • Select list
  • Legitimate expectation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.

Prescription of reasonable minimum qualifying marks for viva voce as part of judicial recruitment is permissible and not inconsistent with this Court’s acceptance of aspects of the Shetty Commission in All India Judges (2002); where statutory Rules prescribe cut-offs those Rules govern (and were valid here: Clause 11 Bihar Rules, 1951 and Rule 8(3) Gujarat Rules, 2005 as amended were upheld); the Bihar and Gujarat selection processes were not vitiated on the facts (moderation and corrective steps by Patna High Court were bona fide and within available powers); non-consultation with the State…

Source excerpt

  • Viva voce qualifying marks
  • Shetty commission recommendations
  • All india judges (2002)
  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • Article 234
Read case analysis
Service law

UNION OF INDIA versus UZAIR IMRAN & ORS.

Because the appellant allowed the third respondent to participate in the selection, place high on the merit list and send him for pre-induction training, and thereafter excluded him by a general instruction without application of mind to his certificate (which left room for two reasonable views and bore the remark 'Regular'), the exclusion was arbitrary and violative of Article 14; fairness required seeking clarification from the certifying Board, and equitable relief in the form of appointment on probation (or creation of a supernumerary post) was justified under Article 142.

Source excerpt

  • Appointment/selection
  • Equivalence of educational qualification
  • Article 16
  • Article 14
  • Recruitment rules
  • Judicial review
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JANHIT ABHIYAN versus UNION OF INDIA

By a majority (3:2) the Court held that the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid: economic criteria can permissibly be the basis of affirmative action; exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs (SEBCs) from EWS reservation is a form of compensatory discrimination that does not violate the equality code; and a 10% EWS reservation in addition to existing reservations does not breach the 50% ceiling insofar as that ceiling is not inflexible and principally applies to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). Consequently the challenge to the 103rd Amendmen…

Source excerpt

  • Constitution (one hundred and third amendment) act, 2019
  • Basic structure doctrine
  • Reservation and affirmative action
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 368
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SATYAJIT KUMAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

The Notifications/Order (No.5938/5939 dated 14.07.2016) providing 100% reservation for local residents of the thirteen Scheduled Districts exceeded the Governor’s powers under paragraph 5(1) (which cannot modify subordinate rules under Article 309), violated Articles 14, 13(2), 15 and 16(2) (and were contrary to Article 16(3)/Article 35), and are therefore unconstitutional and ultra vires; appointments made pursuant to those notifications cannot be regularized, but in the public interest the Court, exercising Article 142, directed revision of merit lists based on already published cut-offs to…

Source excerpt

  • Fifth schedule
  • Governor powers
  • Reservation
  • Article 16
  • Article 13
  • Recruitment rules
Read case analysis
Service law

CHANDAN BANERJEE & ORS. versus KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH & ORS.

The impugned circular dated 3 July 2012 and the subsequent gradation list were valid: classification based on educational qualification for promotion to supernumerary AE posts was a reasonable measure that bore a rational nexus to the stated objectives (removal of stagnation and administrative efficiency), was consistent with past promotion practices and Recruitment Regulations, did not arbitrarily or completely foreclose promotional avenues for diploma-holder SAEs, and therefore did not violate Articles 14 and 16; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion
  • Supernumerary posts
  • Classification
  • Educational qualification
  • Article 14
  • Article 16
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.